UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[Former President tack50]

Worth noting that if Britain rejoins the EU has said they will lose their opt outs.

In other words, the UK would need to join Schengen, adopt the euro as its currency, etc

[Former President tack50]

The real canary in the coal mine is the personal ratings of both Starmer & Johnson; Starmer is seen as more competent than Johnson & I can't remember what the specific one personal rating where Starmer was the first Labour Leader for 13 years to be ahead.

I've generally always thought that the personal ratings of the leaders are an equal if not better metric of an election; of course this has just convinced me that they'll ditch Bojo either this year or the next & bring in Rishi (someone who was this time last year a parliamentary under-secretary of state for local government)

I remember an interesting factoid (might be incorrect though) that the only time that a party has won while losing the "Preferred PM" polls was in 1979 or something like that; while every other time the party who won the preferred PM polls won.

Of course there is a lot of correlation but still interesting to see no splits on that

[Former President tack50]

Also regarding Johnson's abrupt end to his Prime Ministership remember, there are almost 4 and a half years left until the next election, there is certainly plenty of time for Johnson to correct course, or to become more popular or something.

Fun Fact: Prime Minister Milliband's first term would have ended only one month ago

[Former President tack50]

If that was the result in the Scottish Parliament pro-independence parties would both clearly have a majority of the votes (56%/55%) and seats (60%) and it'd be incredibly tricky, with what they've said before, for the Westminster government to block a second independence referendum.  Would be the best SNP election performance ever; the worst Labour performance ever and the Greens end up losing seats despite gaining votes because of the SNP winning almost every constituency which raises the effective threshold.

Uh, how would it be hard to stop a 2nd independence referendum? It is up to Johnson to authorize one so if he says no, that is final and there is nothing the Scottish people can do until 2024, if not longer.

If the Sturgeon tries to do one without permission, see: Catalonia 2017.

[Former President tack50]

Come to think about it and given the current Scottish polling numbers, an interesting scenario is what happens if the SNP loses its majority and the Greens do not make it in.

Do they lead a minority government regardless? Do they seek confidence and supply from Labour? Or do they go with the Lib Dems?

In any case those all kill Indyref 2 of course.

[Former President tack50]

RE Scotland: Another problem when it comes to challenging the SNP local dominance comes from the parties who are contesting it. A Tory surge would lead to an obvious unionist government, but a Tory surge would just be towards around 25% and nationalists around 46-48%, leaving them open to true 'coalition of chaos' attacks. If Labour surge then the SNp are going to dog the local party with the question of what govt they would prefer: a unionist coalition or a left-leaning SNP-Lab govt. There are no good answers, including silence and defection, when it comes to that question.

Joke: Scottish Tory surge
Woke: Scottish Labour surge
Bespoke: Scottish Lib Dems surge

[Former President tack50]

Really as long as Scotland based mostly off independence the only thing Scottish Labour can do is sit, wait and try to somehow position themselves as the best unionist party. Given Scotland's left wing tilt, you'd expect this to be easier, though I guess the average Scottish secessionist leans left? (even if there are plenty of conservatives for independence I suppose)

As long as the SNP is united, and as long as Scots vote on independence first and policy second, expect decades of SNP rule in Scotland to come, and this includes the SNP winning a majority of seats in Scotland every time, though a 2017-like result could happen as well as opposed to a 2015 or 2019-like one.

[Former President tack50]

Well, because of the SNP sweeping Scotland nowadays, it is almost impossible for Labour to win a majority. Their vote is more efficient now than it was in say, 2015, but still not great.

Assuming the Lib Dems get say, 10% (so a bit down compared to 2019) and the SNP gets 4% (exactly the same as 2019); a popular vote tie leads to: Con 285, Lab 279, SNP 51, Lib 12.

For Labour to get an actual majority they need to be winning by at least 9 points nationally (44-35), which leads to Lab 323, Con 236, SNP 50, Lib 18; which should be a narrow majority if you account for the SDLP and the Sinn Fein abstaining.

To get an idea of how unlikely that would be, Boris Johnson would be losing his own seat in such an scenario and it would not even be that close (he'd lose by 11 points; 52-41)

Of course, you could also work assuming what I call "Spanish politics rules"; where basically anything that is not a Tory majority is an automatic Labour win, even if with a very unstable government; since no "minor party" (ie Lib Dems / SNP) will back the Tories. This is almost certainly true for the SNP, but less so for the Lib Dems I imagine.

If you think the Lib Dems would back Labour in the end, then it gets incredibly easy; Labour just needs to keep the Tories below 326 (in practice more like 310 because of the DUP and Sinn Fein abstaining). That can actually be done while losing the popular vote! A 2 point Tory win for instance (40-38) results in a parliament where Lab+SNP+Lib get 329 seats, which is a majority (269+51+9 respectively). Basically Labour just neeeds a 2017 redux.

If you think the Lib Dems would actually back the Tories, it gets a bit trickier but not by much; Labour just needs to lose by a bit less. A Tory win of 1 point does the trick (Lab 279 and SNP at 51). So basically Labour just needs to improve upon 2017 by a bit, but it does not even need to actually properly win.

This all assumes an even swing, but still should give an idea.

[Former President tack50]

Why would, or even should Labour care about Scotland?

Most seats gained there would come from the SNP, not the Tories.

So unless you think Johnson can somehow get SNP support in a hung parliament; anything with the Tories at 300 or less and Labour at 270 or more is an auto-Labour win.

Labour does not need to get a majority to get PM Starmer, they just need to get across the line with SNP support. An actual majority would be nice, but is very unrealistic as long as Scotland votes on "ethnic" lines

[Former President tack50]

I agree with jaymichaud and DaWN here. What she did was ignorant and the reaction by Starmer is an overreaction. Overreaction is also understandable because Labour was too lax before on the issue (and unlike changes in other things, while this is a massive flip flop it is not one that can be weaponized by the Tories lol)

If a zero tolerance policy on that issue is what makes Labour win, even if I do not 100% agree I would shut up though.

I will also say that Britain tends to overanalyze the issue of antisemitism for some reason? Probably this is the fault of Labour (particularly the left of Labour) and its supporters, but you never hear anti-semitism stories rocking the German SPD or Greens; the French left, the Spanish PSOE or any other comparable party in Western Europe. Or at the very least, said stories are not as prevalent as in Britain.

Finally, let's remember that Bailey was not the interviewee nor did she endorse the entire interview on her not-quite-an-apology for a moment.

[Former President tack50]

If Labour went too far, how well would a party to the left of Labour do?

Would they be able to win any seats? Or get like 3-4% of the vote at least?

[Former President tack50]

Re: Perth & North Perthshire, as always it is worth noting that Scottish secessionism screws up any political comparisons between them and the rest of the UK.

In fairness, at this point including Scotland in any cross-UK political comparisons makes only slightly more sense than including Northern Ireland; and the map should have really been limited to England+Wales

[Former President tack50]

Actually, whilst poll internals are always *always* somewhat suspect there *is* some evidence that Labour under Starmer have retaken the most ground in the "red wall" seats they famously lost last year. To win an election their vote distribution will have to become better "balanced", so grounds for cautious optimism there.

Well, the question is, why is Starmer appealing to that kind of Labour voter who voted for Boris Johnson in 2019? Why is Starmer succeeding where Corbyn failed?

It's not like Starmer is any closer to that kind of voter than Corbyn?

[Former President tack50]

On the topic of Scotland rejoining the EU, more than the admission process taking time (5-8 years seems about right though I imagine Scottish admission would be fast tracked); a bigger issue would be that Scotland would have none of the advantages the UK used to have.

Essencially this means no rebate and Scotland pledging to eventually join the eurozone (although they could go the way of Sweden and stall indefinitely)

[Former President tack50]

To be honest, I find it much more likely that it is Labour that pushes an IndyRef2 instead of the Tories. The scenario even writes itself, hung parliament in 2024 and Starmer must depend on the SNP. The SNP makes it a "Sine que non" condition for support that Labour supports an IndyRef 2.

If Labour rejects it, the UK has general elections every 6 months until someone can cobble up a majority without the SNP (whether because Scots snap out of it or because Labour/Tories get a majority or a minority where they can get away with only the Lib Dems+DUP/SDLP)

If Labour accepts, indyref 2 happens.

[Former President tack50]

What is the whole purpose of the European Union?

So much chaos, crisis, problem after problem.

I mean, I get some of the arguments from Euroskeptics that it is not "worth it" even if I disagree with them; generally they go along the lines of one of sovereignty, not geting enough in return for what they put into it or immigration.

But the objectives of the EU are actually fairly clear. To promote trade among EU nations, which will increase the economy and what not, as well as other similar programs that are to the benefit of all member states. Another important, albeit debatable goal is to promote peace among European nations with the goal of avoiding another war in the continent.

If you are one of the 4 Eurofederalists around, I guess an "EU state" is eventually an objective but I tend to put that "goal" among the things that "can happen, but even if they do will not happen in my lifetime and even my grandchildren may not live to see it"; alongside stuff like Human colonies on Mars or exploring another solar system.

Or alternatively, I guess I could just quote the founding treaty of the EU (Treaty of Rome):

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common
action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the
living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in
order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious
development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the
backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive
abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries
and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and
liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in
their efforts,

HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community

[Former President tack50]

What is the whole purpose of the European Union?

1. To provide a make-work programme and pension scheme for has-been and never-will-be politicians who failed/never made it at the national political level.
2. To give  an enormous (but largely false) ego-boost to ‘Europeans’ with small-man syndrome who feel threatened by the fact that the United States, China and, to a lesser extent, Russia, rule the roost in geopolitical terms.
3. To shuffle money more easily around the continent from richer to poorer countries, under the auspices of ‘convergence’ (lol).
4. To shuffle people more easily around the continent from poorer to richer countries, because having British (as was), German or Italian citizens pick fruit or clean toilets is morally wrong.
5. To enable the fulfilment of various national interests; countries with large (in the European context), inefficient agricultural sectors getting subsidies; traditionally poor countries laundering their creditworthiness via membership of the Eurozone; a comfort blanket for Germans who believe they’ll instantaneously march into the Sudetenland/Poland without some form of membership in an international body.

All the above reasons are laundered, to a greater or lesser degree, by vacuous appeals to factitious ‘European Values’ and the importance of the EU in maintaining them.

I mean, point by point:

1) I will give you this one. It is a shame that EU institutions often end up as a "retirement home" for have-been politicians. I wish things were different though.

2) Do you seriously deny the fact that, for most European countries, being inside the EU is a big positive to their foreign policy, buying them a ton of influence since they get the backing of a much larger bloc? Unless your name is France, Germany or the UK (I guess bias there ); your foreign policy will be a lot more effective as part of the EU than if you are alone.

Do you seriously think say, Latvia or Belgium would have any chance of "making it" in the world stage outside the EU? Most European countries are unable to compete with the power that countries like Russia or China have, if they act by themselves.

3) Convergence has been extremely effective at its goal though? Southern Europe managed to catch up quite a bit to Western Europe between the 80s and the 2000s; and nowadays it is Eastern Europe that has managed to catch up as well; with countries like the Czech Republic or Estonia not being far from the living standards of countries like Spain or Portugal.

4) I might be a bit biased here. I am actually somewhat against non-EU immigration; but EU immigration has been a huge positive for most countries? EU internal immigration provides most in not all of the positives of immigration with little to none of the negatives.

If anything the issue here would be "brain drain" from some of the less developed countries (I think this is a big issue in countries like Romania or Bulgaria?)

5) This is "international negotiations 101"?  Compromises, by their own nature mean some countries give up on some things in exchange for getting others. Overall the EU is undeniable a positive proposition for all members though.

[Former President tack50]

Why are people accusing the Tories of racism?

What did they do wrong?

1) How long have you got?

2) Where to even start??

(other more considered answers are available, and others here might provide them)

Not every rightwing party in the world should be accused of racism

You are critiquing a position that nobody on this thread has taken.

I guess several pages in we will now need this, even if it is technically not a Bronz thread

[Former President tack50]

When was the last time a former party leader was suspended?

[Former President tack50]

For the English parliament haters, can't England be broken up and instead regional parliaments based odf the regions of England be made? Tony Blair actually tried that even if it was a miserable failure when it came to a referendum

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_North_East_England_devolution_referendum

That is what happened here and for all its flaws and headaches it has worked """fine""".

There is already even an example in England! Greater London, with its Assembly and mayor is still part of England after all. Just replicate that England wide in its 8 regions?

[Former President tack50]

Why can't Boris Johnson seek out an extension from the EU, just like Theresa May (or hell, even Johnson himself a year ago) used to do?

Similarly with the comparison to Theresa May; why isn't Boris Johnson facing a backbench uprising? Have all the soft-Brexiteers been purged from the Conservatives and been replace with people better described as "UKIP but in blue"?

[Former President tack50]

Funny, I wasn't aware that that's what I was doing? It just seems like a pretty big problem for Labour when most of those Red Wall voters are socially conservative in their outlook & Labour looks like it has nothing to offer them because it's more focused on the vocal but diminutive-in-number metropolitan membership that has mainly been focused on social justice issues (which those Red Wall voters probably consider to be trivial) & internal squabbles.

It is perhaps also a good idea to note that seats and votes are not the same thing. All reliable evidence points towards this fact: that what did the greatest damage to Labour in 2019 was not direct defections to the Tories,* but that a large chunk of its usual base vote decided not vote at all, and that a smaller section of it voted for a scattering of minor parties. I noticed this in my own family, which is very much one shaped by long-dead extractive industries and the subcultures those created: a remarkable number of people who always or usually vote Labour either did not or only did so extremely reluctantly. On top of this we add the strange impact of 2019 being an Issue Election and the simple fact that a lot of people who normally move their votes around were quite genuinely afraid of Corbyn. Which is where all this 'Red Wall' nonsense falls apart: you're actually dealing with a quite complex series of processes.

While turnout was down in 2019, the decrease was minimal though? 2019 doesn't seem to me like a low turnout UK election unlike say, 2001?

For turnout to stay stagnant while (some) Labour voters stayed home; that would imply there was also another group of non-voters came out to vote in 2019 but not 2017; presumably for the Conservatives.

[Former President tack50]

With schools and universities now shut for the foreseeable future, it’s difficult to see how the restrictions can practically be made stricter, short of ‘well if we self-nuked the country then that would prevent anymore COVID-related deaths’.

There is alwats the Spanish option of "basically home arrest in all but name" but I doubt the political capital is there to pull it off

Even here in Spain it is iffy though there have been some calls to do it in certain regions

[Former President tack50]

'Nationalists' are those Scots Nats, Welsh speakers and Northern Irish Catholics.

British Nationalists are Unionists. Flag waving, anti-Europeanism and British exceptionalism isn't called Nationalism because Nationalism is bad/divisive/the other lot. And Britishness imposed outside and within Britain isn't allowed to ever be considered an expression of 'bad Nationalism'.

Catalonia/Basque Country called, they want their talking points back

[Former President tack50]

I think the fact that the GLC was abolished because it 'got in the way' shows that we have a rather complex relationship with devolded power in this country.

And at any time Johnson can do the same to Scottish parliament, which is scandalous.

To be fair, 326 MPs could, at any time, if acting coordinatedly, run the UK like a dictatorship, so that doesn't surprise me too much.

Parliamentary supremacy and unwritten constitutions may have their advantages (see: Scotland vs Catalonia; although the UK's constitutional differences are only one of the many reasons) but I don't think it is worth it at the end of the day.